Amid growing controversy about budget war costs in Iraq, Defense Secretary Robert Gates has reneged on the commitment he made to Buduget Committee chair Kent Conrad (D-ND) and ranking member Judd Gregg (R-NH) during his confirmation process that he would present the FY08 Defense budget to the Senate Budget Committee next week (something Donald Rumsfeld never did). As we noted in FY2008 -- Mixed Budget Signals, the administration, presumably seeking to keep the enemy, as well as Congress guessing about its strategic intentions, has provided mere funding fragments in its FY 2008, totaling $200 billion through 2012. Lacking Gates' assistance, Conrad requested and has now received projections from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) of Iraq war costs over each of the next ten years. The CBO projections fill out the picture. Using the CBO's rule of thumb that 75-80 percent of its aggregate war-on-terroism projections reflect operations in Iraq, the CBO makes projections under two scenarios:

• under the first, the number of troops post-surge falls gradually over three years to 130,000 in 2008 and by 2010 there are 20,000 U.S. military personnel in Iraq. That would cost $416 billion over the 2008-2012 period -- meaning that the administration has under-budgeted for 2008-2012 Iraqi war costs by $216 billion
• under the second, the number of troops falls gradually from a post-surge figure of 155,000 in 2008 and thereafter until 55,000 troops remain in 2013. That would cost $555 billion over the 2008-2012 period -- meaning that the administration has under-budgeted for 2008-2012 Iraqi war costs by $355 billion

There goes the administration's projected $61 billion budget surplus for FY 2012, and then some.